AIBU to refuse to take the morning after pill

[Stillwishihadabs]

So background I am 42 and happily married 2 DC s (14&11). Having used the cooper coil for 10 years (since DCs) I have recently have some gynae issues so have to have it removed. I had a couple of months on the mini pill, but had horrific side effects and understand that the mirena would be similar. So approxiamately 2 weeks ago I stopped taking it and basically told DH I was sick of messing about with my body and it was up to him. Last night after the footy and a few drinks we DTD. I asked him if he was going to use a condom and he said "where are you in your cycle?" To which I replied " I haven't a clue" ( true, no period since stopping mini pill). I wouldn't mind being PG I have an excellent job with good maternity pay, a people carrier and a 4/5 bed house. Also one of my school friends has recently announced her pregnancy which made me go "ahhh". Today DH seems freaked out by what happened and is asking me to take emergency contraception. AIBU to refuse ? I think he needs to step up with contraception if he doesn't want another DC. I have a feeling that if I do this it will remain my responsibility.

Yes, obviously, @QuackPorridgeBacon but in this case her DH knowingly took the risk, despite the OP warning him, presumably because he was too lazy to put on a condom. She didn't refuse to wear a condom.

You have a point if the man really doesn't want a child and the woman lied, as I said before. But what's the alternative? A woman forced into having an abortion she doesn't want (some women wouldn't even see it as an option) could really destroy her life emotionally. Not to mention the fact that she might not get pregnant again, that happens too. (I had a baby die as an abused teen and then was infertile later.) Whereas most men can father another child.

There isn't a way round it. A man doesn't have to raise a child and in fact a lot don't. It's women who are left holding the baby, not men. So pardon me for not having a lot of sympathy.

Could you not buy some spermicidal pessaries for future occurrences?
I don't know whether or not you should take the morning after pill on this occasion, that is up to you but in your position, I would. Don't necessarily tell husband and make sure you use contraception from now on.

Lizzie48 Did not day it links to the op I was on about in general. Not once have I or anyone else mentioned forced abortions fs. She can keep the baby but the man should be able to walk away, no forced abortions at all. I think it’s great women can have them I’m just waiting for where I live to wise up and allow them, but nope, not once did I say to force an abortion and I actually did give an alternative.

Some women are morally opposed to MAP etc, so for them, a split condom results in no choice but to go ahead with a pregnancy. It's a bit unfair to tell them they have to go it entirely alone over something they may well feel they had no real choice over either.

I think children are better off with 2 parents tbh. I know you can't force someone to love a child, but you can certainly make that child's life easier with proper financial support.

Yanbu
He knows the risks
He's not a child!!!

QuackPorridgeBacon But what happens when the child asks who the dad is? Once the child is conceived, the man becomes a dad if the woman wants to go ahead with the pregnancy. If a man really doesn't want a child then he can use a condom, or have a vasectomy if he doesn't want any more children. And if it splits then it's an issue for both of them to cope with.

If the woman lies, then I do have sympathy. But I feel more sympathy for the child.

The fact is, men do often walk away if they don't want a child, it happens all the time.

Thanks @QuackPorridgeBacon for explaining what I meant.

Can you think of any other inequalities that just have to be accepted @IWannaSeeHowItEnds or is it only this one (incedentally one which massively benefits women)?

"once a child exists, the child's needs are paramount and it is thr child who is entitled to physical, financial and emotional support."

But at the stage of MAP there is no child in existence. In fact, until 24 weeks there isn't.

"She didn't refuse to wear a condom." True @Lizzie48 but she could have said no to sex.

"So pardon me for not having a lot of sympathy."

You weren't asked for any.

"have a vasectomy if he doesn't want any more children."\

10% of men are left with chronic pain or life-long complications.

But she has said she would like to have a baby. She even talked about names. Why didn't he say no then?

They had talked about having another child and he never expressed himself to be completely against the idea. He was giving mixed messages.

No in this case he had only himself to blame.

Anyway, it doesn't seem likely she'll get pregnant.

gunny, people have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and the biological reality of women getting pregnant means that men, in this circumstance, have to accept the seeming inequality in order to protect that right. It is the only situation I can think of, off the top of my head, where men as a sex are disadvantaged in life.

I'm not sure it massively benefits women tbh. Pregnancy and birth can be a risky business. Women are still disadvantaged in the workplace by parenthood and socially there are much higher expectations of mothers than fathers. You don't see many women buggering off and not paying child support. Otoh you see it quite a lot from men, even when they actively chose to be parents.

I have a great deal of sympathy for men who use condoms, it splits and they find themselves facing parenthood when they didn't want to. But there is no way around it that doesn't compromise a woman's right to control her own body or a child's right to emotional, physical and financial support from its parents.

Adults (if they are decent) have to put the child first. The circumstances surrounding how that child came to be, doesn't really matter.

There simply isn't a "right" to consequence free sex. It's always a gamble. You can reduce the odds of pg considerably with contraception (and more so with sterilisation/vasectomy) but overall it's still a gamble. If the 1 in a 100 happens no man has the right to tell me to take a pill to end what may already be a fertilised egg, or to terminate a developing pregnancy. That it is legal for me to do so doesn't make it right for me No one should ever feel coerced/pressurised/threatened to go through with an abortion. There's no 50/50 decision here! Once the baby is born I don't have a right to money for him or her, the baby has the right to support from its parents.

There's a reason schools use those fake babies to make teenagers understand that sex has actual consequences.

Quite, and women don't have that right either. We just face two different sets of consequences. We get the physical danger and unpleasantness and the choice, they get no physical danger or unpleasantness but no choice either. Although the way some of them recklessly deposit their sperm in vaginas without a passing thought, I'm not sure all men regard the lack of choice in the event of conception as much of a risk!

I’ve been thinking along these lines for years and can’t see why a man shouldn’t also be able to walk away from parenthood if he’s made his feelings very clear, especially if he did protect and it failed.

Unless you're suggesting that a man should be allowed to force an abortion on an unwilling pregnant mother (which I doubt), I think the reason he can't walk away is because his actions have resulted in the birth of a child, who then needs to be supported. Ultimately, nobody would force "fatherhood" on this man other than the law requiring a financial contribution for the upkeep of the child he has created. He isn't forced to care for the child, or even to see it. He just has to pay for the consequences of his actions.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

I haven't for a second suggested a woman shouldn't have autonomy of her body.

I didn't ask about situations where men are disadvantaged (school / education seems like a good one, by the way), I asked, and I'll ask again, are there any situations where we should accept that one sex is at a disadvantage and that's just "the way it is"?

You've conflating children and fetuses. Women can take the MAP and have abortions because they are not killing children. I and others have suggested that men could perhaps opt out of parenthood before there is a child i.e. at the MAP stage. Surely legally and in line with women's bodily autonomy, a man becomes a father at 24 weeks. Am I wrong? If so, how?

"No one should ever feel coerced/pressurised/threatened to go through with an abortion."

No one has suggested they should, certainly not me. 'Pressure' is a tricky one as it can simply mean understanding the consequences and a man saying he doesn't want to be a father isn't unfair pressure on the mother. Especially at a very early stage.

Gunny, I get what you are saying but it doesn't work because whether he chooses it or not, once a child is born, the child's rights are more important than his. How the child came about is neither here nor there.

When it comes to deciding whether a pg goes ahead, yes I do think a man has to accept it if he feels disadvantaged becauae there really is no way to compromise without removing the rights of a woman or the child that will be born. Pg happens to her, not him.

And of course, there are people who brlieve that life begins at conception. You can't ignore how they feel about MAP and termination.

YANBU

YANBU - I am quite surprised at the pasting you have had from some posters.

I agree. Man who chooses not to use condom with woman who isn't on contraception = potential father. His choice.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

I guess we'll have to disagree. We at least understand each others positions.

You have completely ignored my question though. Are there any other circumstances at all where women need to accept inequality as "just the way it is"?

"there are people who believe that life begins at conception. You can't ignore how they feel about MAP and termination."

The stupidity of religious people and reasons for disregarding everything they say is a whole other thread.

@gunnyBear are there any situations where we should accept that one sex is at a disadvantage and that's just "the way it is"?

Loads

Women are at a disadvantage for most physical things - running fast, lifting heavy things, etc etc etc. You can segregate sports to try and get around it, but that's only a solution if the goal is the position on the podium - if the goal is to run fast, women are at a disadvantage, and that's a fact.

Women are at a disadvantage in the workplace if they have children. People argue that they shouldn't be, but even if women don't take on all childcare, wifework etc, they still have to give birth, and recover from doing so, and men don't.

Men are at a disadvantage in knowing whether their children are genetically theirs. It's easy for a woman to be absolutely certain, less so for a man. Again - that's life.

In terms of opting out of parenting, both sexes can opt out until the point their body is no longer involved. Men can not have sex, and they can use barrier methods. After that, their body isn't involved and they have no say. Women have the option of the MAP or an abortion, but actually there are time limits on abortions and so their chance to opt out is actually shorter than the amount of time their body is involved in creating a baby. That can be a disadvantage too.

@allertse

So you think we should accept these disadvantages as "just the way it is"? That is my question.

We accept that segregated sports are ok for fun or 'podium spots'. Fitness tests where strength is important are either gendered or the bar lowered as it was sexist.

Women out perform men until child-bearing age. Then the slow of understanding say that women are paid less than men. They aren't. They earn less. However, they're right that their choice to have children puts them at a disadvantage. Do you think we should accept that this is "just the way it is"? Many do. I do.

@gunnyBear. I think that some disadvantages have to be accepted as "just the way it is", but not all.

Personally, I am fully in support of sex-segregated sports in most cases, as it encourages participation, and I think that's important. For fitness tests, where the actual performance is what's important, I don't think it should be sex-segregated. I don't care if the person carrying me out of a burning building is male or female, as long as they can carry me. I don't see why the army should have lower fitness standards for women, they can either do what's required or not.

Women out-earn men until child-bearing age. And then women who don't have children continue to out perform men (men with or without children). I suspect that women with children who take no responsibility for childcare perform at the same level as men who commit all their time and effort to their jobs.
On a societal level, the number of women who do this is obviously much lower.
Taking time out of work will disadvantage you, all other things being equal. Taking time out of work to give birth is a disadvantage that women have to accept if they want children. That IS just the way it is. Men can't give birth.
The societal constructs that mean women take on the burden of childcare, can certainly be challenged, and don't have to be accepted.

@gunnyBear, sorry that got a bit garbled. Essentially I don't think it's a question of whether we "should" accept it. For some things we have no choice, we can accept it or we can be angry over things we can't change.

Some things we can change, and those things we can debate until the end of time about whether we should or not!

Gunny, I think I did answer your question. Obviously we strive for equality between the sexes in society and we should correct situations where one sex is disadvantaged due to how our society has been structured (ensuring women are not held back in the workplace for example). However there are biological realities that can make equality impossible, such as the decision to continue a pg or not. I guess that equality is the aim unless it impinges on someone else's body.

It's not only religious people who believe that life begins at conception btw. For some it is just morally wrong and it is their right to hold such a view and not choose abortion for themselves, so long as they don't stand in the way of another woman exercising her right to terminate an unwanted pg.

Gunny as you’ve posted here about a termination i am sensitive to your feelings on this issue but I can’t ignore the guff about “religious people” and it being ridiculous to think life begins at conception. That is your opinion. I have mourned embryos lost in the first trimester and they were definitely babies to me. I still believe in abortion rights but would not want to have one myself (though there could well be circumstances in which I would, however I would believe I was terminating a baby) I also don’t eat meat, but I don’t think the law should prevent you from doing it if you want. You don’t sound very willing to listen to others POV.

That's how you see it, @gunnyBear but just because you think termination doesn't mean killing a baby, a lot of people don't feel that way. We're not saying abortion shouldn't be available, but many of us wouldn't countenance having one. And that isn't something that we should be judged for believing that.

I think the issue is the finality. Whatever it's status in law, a foetus is a potential life and a woman is always aware that she can't go back and change her mind afterwards (unlike the process or relinquishing a baby for adoption). There's also always the possibility that she won't get pregnant again, and that's particularly so in the OP's case, at 42. She wants another baby and so the last thing she would ever do is terminate the pregnancy. (She probably won't be pregnant anyway.)

Termination isn't a relevant option if you believe that the foetus is alive right from the start, I believe personally that this is at implantation in the uterus. I don't understand why you don't appear to understand this. You might believe we're wrong, but it's not right to insult people who disagree with you.

It's not only for religious reasons that a lot of women wouldn't countenance termination, as you can see from this thread.

You're the one who has hijacked this thread btw. Abortion is totally irrelevant to this thread in that the OP wouldn't countenance it anyway as she would want to keep the baby.

I think it's fair to say that it's mostly women the world over who are pressured by husbands, boyfriends and parents (mothers in law too in many countries) into having terminations, or are prevented from having terminations by law.

Men have nothing to complain about IMO.

@allertse

So it seems like the issue at hand is the only 'unfair' one which we should just accept.

"And then women who don't have children continue to out perform men (men with or without children)."

Actually they tend to be pretty equal which is why I see a pay gap as something we should accept as evidence points towards it being a woman's choice and not society and that's what feminism is to me; freedom to chose.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

"there are biological realities that can make equality impossible"

Yes. There being a pay gap for mothers vs women without children and men.

@bakedlikeabun

No need to be sensitive to my feelings but thanks anyway. My opinion about when life begins is backed by science and law. I was more upset about a failed 7-week pregnancy than my termination because of my feelings about the pregnancy.

"You don’t sound very willing to listen to others POV."

I'm very willing to listen but I can be pig headed. I'll happily change my mind in the face of facts contrary to my opinion but I'm pretty obstinate when it comes down to beliefs or feelings.

@Lizzie48

"that isn't something that we should be judged for believing that."

Completely wrong. Why shouldn't you be judged? We should all be judged for our beliefs and actions. I'm happy to be judged for mine as I usually do the right thing and if I haven't then it's a learning opportunity.

"You might believe we're wrong, but it's not right to insult people who disagree with you."

I said "the stupidity of religious people". i.e. people having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. I stand by that. Sexist, racist, homophobic, trans-phobic, religious ... a stupid and dangerous standpoint in any situation.

"I believe personally that [life begins] at implantation in the uterus. I don't understand why you don't appear to understand this."

I understand. I think you're wrong. If you've come to this through your own thought and scientific understanding then I understand and accept it.

"I think it's fair to say that it's mostly women the world over who are pressured by husbands, boyfriends and parents (mothers in law too in many countries) into having terminations, or are prevented from having terminations by law."

Umm ...

"Men have nothing to complain about IMO."

Well, I think it's fair to say that it's mostly men the world over who become fathers against their will ...